Washington's wolves in the newshttp://www.conservationnw.org
Latest press on Washington's wolves and a state wolf plan
daily12011-07-20T15:33:41Z

Wolf bills prowling through state Legislaturehttp://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-clips/wolf-bills-prowling-through-state-legislature
Mitch Friedman, Conservation Northwest’s executive director, said his group initially opposed Kretz’s bill that calls for reopening the states’ wolf recovery plan, because they believe that plan is solid. But, he said, the House agreed to some changes in the bill which enabled them to support it. “It’s not perfect. Nobody got everything they wanted, but there’s something in it for everybody,” he said.

OLYMPIA – State lawmakers in both the house and senate passed bills dealing with wolves that are sponsored by Republicans from northeastern counties, where the rapidly increasing wolf population is taking its toll on domestic sheep and cattle.

If they become law, the bills would direct the state to reconsider parts of the state’s wolf recovery plan, examine the impact of wolves on deer, elk and other game animals, and allow endangered species — including wolves — to be removed from the state’s endangered status on a regional instead of a statewide basis.

Sponsors of the bills include Reps. Joel Kretz and Shelly Short, Sen. Brian Dansel, who represent counties in Northeastern Washington, where 12 of the state’s 16 wolf packs live.

Kretz said the bills unfortunately don’t address the immediate problems of livestock owners who have had the largest burden of helping wolves recover. Two of the bills he and Short sponsored got unanimous votes by the House on Tuesday. Kretz said when he first approached Democrats for support early in the session, “They would not even talk to me. To get a unanimous vote on something, it was a long pull on that,” he said.

Mitch Friedman, Conservation Northwest’s executive director, said his group initially opposed Kretz’s bill that calls for reopening the states’ wolf recovery plan, because they believe that plan is solid. But, he said, the House agreed to some changes in the bill which enabled them to support it. “It’s not perfect. Nobody got everything they wanted, but there’s something in it for everybody,” he said.

The Senate version lacks key compromises contained in the House bill, and Conservation Northwest does not support it, he said.

Both bills require the state to take another look at its wolf recovery plan and use the most updated available science to recommend changes.

Those changes could include:

<> Whether recovery should be based on the number of wolf packs instead of breeding pairs.<> More options for removing wolves from endangered status.<> Whether the three recovery zones should be changed, reduced or consolidated.<> Finding reasonable prevention measures for livestock owners.<> Reviewing current conditions that lead to killing wolves that have killed livestock.<> Whether the current enforcement and penalties for poaching wolves are sufficient deterrents.

Friedman said the added language about poaching – which is not in the Senate bill – is among the reasons Conservation Northwest now supports it.

Legislative support for these bills comes less than a week after the state Department of Fish and Wildlife announced a 30 percent increase in the number of wolves it believes are now living in Washington. Four new packs were also discovered.

The agency says at least 68 gray wolves now roam the state. There are 16 wolf packs and at least five successful breeding pairs.

The number of confirmed wolves in North Central Washington actually dropped slightly, from 13 to 11. The Wenatchee Pack remained stable at two wolves, the Lookout Pack near Twisp dropped from five wolves to four, and the Teanaway Pack south of Wenatchee dropped from six wolves to five.

Fish and Wildlife spokesman Craig Bartlett noted those are only the wolves the agency managed to confirm, and tracking was difficult this winter due to low snow levels.

Under the state’s current wolf plan, wolves can be removed from the state’s endangered species list when 15 successful breeding pairs are documented for three consecutive years, distributed among three wolf-recovery regions.

Despite the increase in the number of wolves, the number of documented breeding pairs has remained at five for the last three years, all in either the North Cascades or Eastern Washington area. No wolf packs or breeding pairs have yet been documented in the South Cascades and Northwest Coast recovery region.

]]>No publisherChase GunnellWashington's wolves2015-03-12T23:54:44ZPress ClipWA WOLF POPULATION UP TO 68, 2 NEW PACKS ANNOUNCED, 16 TOTALhttp://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-clips/wa-wolf-population-up-to-68-2-new-packs-announced-16-total
WDFW wolf managers reported today that Washington’s population of the predators grew by 30 percent over the previous year, and includes four new packs, two of which were just announced.

WDFW wolf managers reported today that Washington’s population of the predators grew by 30 percent over the previous year, and includes four new packs, two of which were just announced.

They say that there is now a minimum of 68 wolves – and likely more because poor, generally snow-free weather hampered counting efforts – and say the new packs are called Whitestone and Tucannon, references to locations on the southern end of the Colville Reservation and in the Blue Mountains.

The other two new packs, Profanity Peak and Goodman Meadows, were named this past summer. All are east of the Cascades. None were found in the South Cascades.

The figures come as part of the annual count of the species, performed each winter. At the end of 2013, there was at least 52 wolves in the state, in 13 packs.

There are now at least 16 packs in Washington, and five successful breeding pairs.

“While we can’t count every wolf in the state, the formation of four new packs is clear evidence that wolves are recovering in Washington,” WDFW wolf manager Donny Martorello said in a press release. “Since 2011, the number of confirmed wolf packs has more than tripled in our state.”

Mark Pidgeon, president of the Hunters Heritage Council, an umbrella group of organizations across the state, noted that the updated population figures showed wolves continue to recover, but their growth rate would challenge the state.

“WDFW will have to balance a fine line of ensuring wolf recovery, while preserving hunting opportunities, and protecting ungulate populations, livestock producers, and rural communities from the effects of wolves,” Pidgeon said.

The Ruby Creek Pack has been scrubbed from WDFW’s last wolf map because one member, which was bred by a sheepdog and had to be spayed, was hit by a car last year and the other was captured and taken to Wolf Haven, south of Olympia in recent weeks.

Washington also saw a “record” number of livestock depredations last year, WDFW reports, including more than 30 sheep in southern Stevens County.

The agency acknowledged that “actual losses were higher than verified to date.” The herdsman and Northeast Washington politicians have reported a loss of 300 more after the flock was turned out near the Huckleberry’s den and rendezvous last spring.

Four cows and a dog were also depredated in 2014, WDFW reported.

“I’ve been involved in wolf management for more than a decade, and the issues are much the same from state to state,” new agency director Jim Unsworth said in a press release. “Conflicts with livestock are bound to rise as the state’s wolf population increases, and we have to do everything we can to manage that situation. So far, wolf predation on livestock has been well below levels experienced in most other states with wolves.”

To keep it low, WDFW says it is:

Expanding partnerships with ranchers to avoid conflicts with wolves. The department has stationed wildlife conflict specialists in communities where wolves are recovering to work with individual producers.

Expanding its “range rider” program, where ranchers can turn for help if they need assistance guarding their livestock. Range riders have been used by several producers, and the state program will provide an increased human presence in grazing areas.

Informing livestock owners of the availability of a new carcass pit in Ferry County where they can dispose of dead livestock and other attractants.

Continuing to offer cost-sharing agreements for ranchers who seek help in funding preventive measures to protect their animals.

The population growth came despite at least 10 Washington wolves dying in 2014, according to WDFW. Three were killed by poachers, three of natural causes – two were killed and eaten by cougars – two of unknown causes, and one via lethal removal after the aforementioned sheep depredations.

Much was made of the shooting of that female, the alpha of the Huckleberry Pack, as well as the unsolved poaching of the productive Teanaway female in October. Earlier this week pro-wolf groups claimed Washington now had only three breeding females.

However, today’s press release from WDFW contradicts that, to a degree.

The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service defines a successful breeding pair as two adults and two pups surviving to the end of the year, and Ware says that WDFW wanted to remain consistent with that. He says the agency also consulted with USFWS on it.

Overflight and capture attempts earlier this winter focused on the Teanaways and Huckleberries.

Of the three wolves WDFW has caught this winter, two were Teanaway yearlings. That pack is fairly key because of its proximity to the South Cascades Zone, which is a hole in the state’s wolf map — at least for recovery purposes — where again no wolves were confirmed, but probably are.

“So many reports between Naches and I-90 on the border of the wilderness,” says Ware. “It’s just a matter of time before we can document some.”

While that would bring wolves within close proximity of two of the state’s most prized elk herds, the Yakima and St. Helens herds, under the current management plan, at least four successful breeding pairs are required in that rumply swath between the interstate and Columbia River.

Today’s news buoyed Bellingham’s Conservation Northwest, the most pragmatic of the wolf groups.

“We’re excited to hear that Washington’s wolves are continuing their natural recovery despite some setbacks last year,” said spokesman Chase Gunnell. “As our state’s wolf numbers grow, the need for enforcement and self-policing to combat poaching, as well as the continued adoption of conflict avoidance methods by livestock operators, is going to become even more essential in order to meet wolf recovery goals and achieve successful coexistence.”

He says the organization remains “committed” to working with livestock producers to try and reduce the conflicts between wolves and cattle and sheep. CNW partners on range-riding efforts focusing on the Smackout and Teanaway Packs, and last fall reported that six ranches they work with gathered all the sheep and cows that had been turned out in wolf country.

WDFW’s annual count also, for the first time, puts the blue polygon of a pack on the Washington side of the Blue Mountains. While wolves have wandered in from Oregon as numbers in that state have grown, it now appears that at least two have established themselves on the north side of the state line.

Ware says that some from the Beaver State “have spent most of the winter in Washington, and will probably den on this side.”

Speaking of Oregon, its Fish & Wildlife Commission today was told that ODFW knows of at least 77 wolves in the state in nine packs, eight of which were considered successful breeding pairs; 26 pups lived to the end of the year.

As occurred with Oregon, newspaper headlines and press releases from wolf groups will undoubtedly use words like “tenuous” and similar shadings of doubt despite Washington’s robust population growth, but it’s likely there are more wolves out there. WDFW says the lack of much snow — which helps to track wolves and slows them down during aerial captures — probably means the annual count underestimates the number of wolves, packs, and all-important breeding pairs.

“Given the continued growth of the state’s wolf population, there’s a good chance that we have breeding pairs east of the Cascade Range we haven’t found yet,” said Martorello.

The release of the annual count comes the same week that state senators passed a bill that would require the Fish & Wildlife Commission to update its 2011 wolf management plan. A more cautious companion in the House is favored by wolf advocates.

Two other bills would fund wolf-ungulate studies in North-central and Northeast Washington (HB 1676), and allow the citizen oversight panel to consider petitions to delist wolves regionally (SB 5583).

“The hunting community is very concerned about the effects of predators on ungulate populations,” noted Pidgeon, of Hunters Heritage Council. “Ungulate populations have to be protected to make sure that there are hunting opportunities and a large enough prey base to prevent depredations on livestock. Rural communities need to know that their way of life will be protected. Baselines will have to be conducted on ungulate populations and the effects of predators on these populations closely studied to make sure that there is not too great a drop in prey populations. House bill 1676 provides this study and is critically important that it be passed. Without baselines, there will be no way to know exactly what effects predators are having on ungulates. If there is too a large a drop in prey populations, predators won’t turn vegetarian, they will turn to livestock and pets. This will destroy social tolerance of wolves in rural areas. Without social acceptance in these rural areas, wolf recovery will fail. Social tolerance is the number one key to wolf recovery.”

Though CNW opposes or has deep concerns about two of the four bills in Olympia, it also supports HB 1676, which would task the University of Washington with more research into how deer and elk are dealing with wolves in cohabitated units.

“Our goal is for Washington to be the state where wolf recovery works; for people, wolves and all our native wildlife,” said Gunnell.

Earlier this week, a gang of five hardcore wolf groups sued USDA Wildlife Services in federal court, a move to make it more difficult for WDFW to remove problem wolves. Federal wolf managers have said that one out of five packs will present issues with livestock.

We also have requests for comment out to Jack Field of the Washington Cattlemen’s Association.

While wolves were Congressionally delisted in the far eastern third of the state, they remain under statewide protections until certain population benchmarks are reached.

Editor’s note: An earlier version of this blog indicated that the Whitestone Pack was in Okanogan County.

New survey results released on March 6th, 2015 by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) showWashington's wolf population is now at least 68 wolves, up from a minimum of 52 wolves confirmed at the end of 2013. We had at least 16 wolf packs and five successful breeding pairs at the end of 2014.

The four new wolf packs identified in 2014 - Goodman Meadows, Profanity Peak, Tucannon, and Whitestone - were discovered east of the Cascades, where all of the state's other wolf packs are located. No wolf packs or breeding pairs have yet been documented in the South Cascades/Northwest Coast recovery region. The state's Wolf Conservation and Management Plan defines a pack as two or more wolves traveling together in winter.

Unfortunately, at least ten Washington wolves died in 2014. Three were confirmed killed by poachers, three died of natural causes, two died of unknown causes, one was hit by a car and a breeding female was killed last summer during an effort by WDFW to stop members of the Huckleberry Pack from preying on sheep in Stevens County. Another wolf, the "Ruby Creek Female", was accepted for care by Wolf Haven International after it was found living among domestic animals near the town of Ione.

Gray wolves, all but eliminated from western states in the last century, are now recovering under legal protections in several states. Wolves are protected under Washington law throughout the state and under federal law in the western two-thirds of the state.

Because limited snow in late 2014 hampered surveying efforts, it's believed that the actual Washington wolf count is somewhat larger than the 68 animals that were confirmed.

We're excited to hear that Washington's wolves are continuing their natural recovery despite some setbacks last year.

As our state’s wolf numbers grow, the need for enforcement and self-policing to combat poaching, as well as the continued adoption of conflict avoidance methods by livestock operators, is going to become even more essential in order to meet statewide wolf recovery goals and achieve successful coexistence.

Conservation Northwest is committed to helping implement effective strategies to reduce conflicts between wolves, livestock and people. We're also supportive of studies to better understand the impacts wolves are having or not having on our state’s important deer, elk and moose herds.

Our goal is for Washington to be the state where wolf recovery works; for people, wolves and all our native wildlife. With hard work and collaboration, that goal is still achievable.

]]>No publisherChase GunnellWashington's wolvesRange ridingWhat's Hot2015-03-09T17:43:05ZNews ItemTHE DAILY HOWLER: WA SENATE PASSES WOLF PLAN REOPENER BILLhttp://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-clips/the-daily-howler-wa-senate-passes-wolf-plan-reopener-bill
Passage out of the Senate means SB 5960 will now go to the House, where companion bill HB 2107 does have the support of Conservation Northwest of Bellingham, which termed it “much improved” from the legislation originally introduced by Reps. Kretz, Blake, Short, Dent, and Schmick.

By a pretty wide margin (39-9), Washington state senators today passed a bill that would require WDFW to take another look at its 2011 wolf management plan.

However, it now varies somewhat markedly from a companion bill prowling on the House side.

SSB 5960 asks the Fish & Wildlife Commission to consider changing the basic metric for how wolves are counted and what might also be considered recovery, lethal management, and new data on wolf-ungulate interactions, among other items.

It calls on the use of most updated science and coordinating with WDFW’s newly expanded wolf advisory group.

Passage out of the Senate means SB 5960 will now go to the House, where companion bill HB 2107 does have the support of Conservation Northwest of Bellingham, which termed it “much improved” from the legislation originally introduced by Reps. Kretz, Blake, Short, Dent, and Schmick.

Work between Kretz, a Northeast Washington Republican, and Rep. Kristine Lytton, an Anacortes Democrat, appears to have eased its passage last week.

“While it still isn’t exactly as we’d like to see it, we recognize that this process requires that all parties yield a bit,” said CNW in a statement on pending legislation in Olympia. “And we understand the need for state legislators to look for solutions to the concerns of their constituents in regards to relative wolf density in northeast Washington and real or perceived threats to livestock. In its present form this bill is productive enough to have our support.”

WDFW has been supportive of both 2107 and 5960, calling them the “right vehicle” for addressing wolf concerns.

But now there’s a bit of a gulf for representatives and senators to bridge to ultimately get a bill to Governor Inslee’s desk.

“HB 2017 has been amended to address a lot of the concerns, desires of wolf advocates,” noted agency wolf policy lead Dave Ware. “The other bill is pretty much in its original form. The only change is tying funding to its passage.”

One difference between the two is that 5960 bypasses SEPA review while 2107 requires it and scientific peer review.

Two other wolf bills, HB 1676, looking into wolf-ungulate dynamics, and SB 5583, allowing the potential of regional delisting by petition, are still alive, but need to clear their chamber of origin by next Wednesday.

The former has been widely supported while WDFW has expressed concerns about the latter.

Our staff have been hard at work in Olympia this month, meeting with state legislators and colleagues in the conservation and ranching communities to provide input on legislation that continues to support the sustainable recovery of wolves in the Northwest, while also addressing the concerns of folks who live, work and recreate in wolf country.

As of Tuesday March 3rd, we are continuing to support Substitute House Bill 1676; funding new studies that help the state and other stakeholders better understand the impact wolves have or do not have on deer, elk, moose and other ungulate populations. This legislation was strengthened by involving the University of Washington predator ecology lab and specifying the type of peer review that the study will use.

We remain strongly in opposition to Senate Bill 5583; opening up state endangered or threatened species, including but not limited to wolves, to regional or local delisting and the premature removal of protections needed for their recovery.

Several other wolf-related bills did not pass out of committee prior to the cutoff, and are now effectively dead for this session.

The other wolf legislation that remains active is SB 5960 / HB 2107. While we opposed the initial iteration of this legislation, discussions among Representatives Lytton (D-Anacortes), Kretz (R- Wauconda), and Short (R-Addy) resulted in several amendments that improved HB 2107 and the impact it would have on Washington’s wolves and our Wolf Conservation and Management Plan (Wolf Plan). We are now supportive of Substitute House Bill 2107 as amended on February 27th in the House Appropriations Committee.

We are not however supportive of Substitute Senate Bill 5960, which unfortunately passed the Senate on March 4th. Visit this link to ask your state representatives to oppose SSB 5960!

Thanks to the efforts of all involved, Substitute House Bill 2107 has been much improved from its original form. While it still isn't exactly as we’d like to see it, we recognize that this process requires that all parties yield a bit. And we understand the need for state legislators to look for solutions to the concerns of their constituents in regards to relative wolf density in northeast Washington and real or perceived threats to livestock. In its present form this bill is productive enough to have our support.

We also strongly applaud the inclusion of a recommendation to evaluate poaching fines as related to wolves in this legislation.Poaching has been a critical factor in preventing wolves from spreading naturally across Washington; easing the wolf density in northeast Washington, meeting statewide wolf recovery goals, and opening up greater flexibility for wolf managers.

Substitute House Bill 2107 was also revised to include several other amendments that can benefit wolf recovery, including requirements that:

A third party neutral mediation process is used along with the Wolf Advisory Group (WAG) in any update process for the Wolf Conservation and Management Plan.

As the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) works on updating the Wolf Plan as directed by this legislation, it must use the most current and best available science as guidance when looking at wolf recovery targets, zones, and metrics.

The WDFW works to examine barriers to the adoption of cooperative agreements with ranchers and livestock operators designed to increase the use of non-lethal conflict avoidance measures, methods that have proven to be effective at protecting both wolves and livestock.

Wolf Plan amendments must go through scientific peer review before being submitted to the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission for consideration.

WDFW will submit any proposed changes to the Wolf Plan to a review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Any effort by WDFW or the state to revise Washington’s Wolf Plan should be conducted within a thorough public process that includes community and stakeholder input, as required by SEPA. Previously, the bill exempted wolf plan revisions from SEPA requirements.

These amendments were negotiated in a bipartisan manner and passed out committee with only two dissenting votes. House Bill 2107 must still win approval from the full House and Senate, and survive final budget negotiations, before it is enacted into law.

The Washington Wolf Conservation and Management Plan was developed and agreed upon by a diverse group of stakeholders; including ranchers, farmers, hunters, conservationists, wildlife advocates and both urban and rural residents. Though we are supporting Substitute House Bill 2107 in its current form, we still believe that the Wolf Plan is working.

Our hope is this proposal can help increase the social tolerance for wolves in rural areas of Washington, increase the fines for poaching wolves (the significant problem that’s slowing their recovery statewide), and make the Wolf Management and Conservation Plan work even better for all stakeholders and for Washington’s recovering gray wolves.

Conservation Northwest believes Washington can be the state where natural wolf recovery works in the long run; for people, wolves and all the Northwest’s wildlife. The bipartisan collaboration this session around this revised wolf legislation is an encouraging step forward in that process.

]]>No publisherChase GunnellLegislatureWashington's wolvesWolf Management PlanWhat's Hot2015-03-04T00:25:00ZNews ItemLegislation pending that could alter state’s wolf management efforts | 2015 Sessionhttp://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-clips/legislation-pending-that-could-alter-state2019s-wolf-management-efforts-2015-session
OLYMPIA — As Washington’s gray wolf population continues to grow, so do concerns from those living in the areas of the state most affected by their return.

OLYMPIA — As Washington’s gray wolf population continues to grow, so do concerns from those living in the areas of the state most affected by their return.

“There's two sides to this issue, and it kind of boils down to either you like them or you don't,” said Rep. Joel Kretz, R-Wauconda, who co-sponsored several wolf-related bills this legislative session.

Seven bills relating to Washington’s gray wolves have been introduced to the 2015 Legislature, with four surviving for continuing consideration in their respective chamber this week. Together they could have a dramatic effect on Washington’s wolf-recovery policy.

Much of the wolf debate stems from an uneven distribution of wolves across the state. Ten of Washington’s 14 wolf packs reside in the state’s northeast corner, and the two largest recent attacks on livestock occurred in Stevens County. While Washington is on track to meet the state’s total wolf population objectives, there’s a long way to go before geographic distribution goals are met.

Although wolves are considered endangered at the federal and state levels, the abundance of wolves in northeastern Washington has prompted a demand that the Department of Fish and Wildlife alter its classification of “endangered” to reflect an animal’s presence in a region rather than in the state as a whole. If wolves were reclassified this way, they would only be considered legally endangered in two-thirds of the state.

Sen. Brian Dansel, R-Republic, is sponsoring Senate Bill 5583, which would give the Department of Fish and Wildlife the power to declassify an endangered species on a regional level. It would also require the department to respond to any petition to declassify with a full investigation and a written response explaining why it chose or chose not to declassify the species.

If the department does decide to declassify an endangered species, the bill would require it to construct an entirely new management system for the species based on populations in that particular region. The new system would have to consider “customs and culture of local communities over statewide goals for any species” undergoing a status change. The bill declares that the impact on local cultures and communities is “the paramount priority.”

Dave Dashiell of the Cattle Producers of Washington advocated for the bill at a committee hearing on Feb. 5, saying he doubted cattle ranchers in Stevens County could “survive another five or six years waiting for [wolves] to be dispersed across the state.” His sheep flock, he reported, was the target of an attack last year that resulted in the deaths of 30 sheep and many more that were never located.

“The agency's authority to list a species as endangered comes from that species of wildlife being seriously threatened with extinction in the state of Washington,” he said. “So if we were to set aside the regional contribution of a species, we are essentially setting aside that contribution to delisting that same species elsewhere in the state.”

As for the ranchers, Pamplin said the department already has a program in place to compensate those who have lost livestock to wolf attacks, and open-range ranchers can earn up to twice market-value on reimbursements for individual animals whose carcasses are never located. He said the department is currently processing Dashiell’s claim in a similar manner.

SB 5583 passed out of the Senate Ways and Means Committee and is on the Rules Committee calendar for advancement. An identical bill in the House, co-sponsored by Kretz, died in committee after one public hearing.

Kretz has been concerned about wolf distribution since the beginning of the legislative session. During a presentation Dave Ware, the DFW’s wolf policy lead, gave to a joint House and Senate committee last month, Kretz suggested using helicopters to relocate wolf packs to Western Washington’s more populated areas, in an effort to take some of the burden off of his wolf-heavy district.

“There are those people who think wolves should be everywhere and should run the state,” Kretz said. “I would support them in Seattle particularly.”

Ware called the suggestion logistically and politically impossible.

Despite their disagreements, Ware supported one of Kretz’s bills during a public hearing in the House Appropriations Committee on Feb. 26. HB 2107 would require the department to amend the 2011 wolf conservation and management plan to better address the uneven distribution. Among other things, the new plan would have to consider reducing or consolidating recovery zones, outline new attack-prevention methods for ranchers, and re-evaluate when lethal force can be used against individual wolves. It now awaits full House consideration.

“This is probably the best vehicle to address some of the concerns we're getting from folks in northeastern Washington,” Ware said, seeing the bill as an appropriate compromise. Dansel’s companion bill in the Senate, SB 5960, passed out of the Senate Ways and Means Committee on Feb. 26 and could receive full Senate consideration this week.

One thing ranchers and conservationists consistently agree on is that they need to better understand the predatory effects wolves have on the wild animals around them.

No official data exist on how elk and deer populations in the northeastern part of the state have been affected by the rising number of wolves there. The lack of data has sparked considerable debate between conservationists and hunters who worry that an increased wolf presence could harm game populations.

House Bill 1676 would shine light on that issue. The bill would require the University of Washington's Predator Ecology Lab to assesses and report on the health of hooved animal populations in places with high wolf-recovery rates. It’s also the only piece of wolf legislation to gain the approval of Conservation Northwest, which advocates for the protection of the region’s old growth forests and other wild places. It awaits assignment for full House consideration by the House Rules Committee.

The bill has received approval from many sides of the wolf debate and passed out of the House Committee on General Government & Information Technology on Feb. 26. UW researchers will have until Oct. 31, 2016 to deliver their report, although the bill would not take effect unless the Legislature allocates the necessary funding by June 30.

]]>No publisherChase GunnellOlympiaWashington's wolvesLegislative committee hearing2015-03-02T22:33:39ZPress ClipUpdate on Proposed Washington Wolf Legislationhttp://www.conservationnw.org/news/updates/update-on-proposed-washington-wolf-legislation
On Thursday, February 5th, 2015, Conservation Northwest wolf conflict specialist Jay Kehne and policy lead Paula Swedeen were at the Washington state capitol testifying on wolf bills in front of House and Senate committees.February 23rd Update: Several new wolf bills have been proposed and have advanced out of committee. Though we support HB 1676 (funding ungulate-wolf interaction research), we are strongly in opposition to SB 5583 (regional species delisting) and we oppose SB 5960/HB 2107 (revising the Wolf Conservation and Management Plan) as it is currently written.

Conservation Northwest staff in Olympia and our partners in the conservation community are continuing to work closely with WDFW staff and state legislators, including those from Northeast Washington, to find a legislative compromise that works for both sustainable wolf recovery and for the people who live, work and recreate in Washington's wolf country.

On
Thursday, February 5th, 2015, Conservation Northwest wolf conflict
specialist Jay Kehne and policy lead Paula Swedeen were at the Washington state
capitol testifying on wolf bills in front of House and Senate committees.

More
than seven wolf-related bills have been proposed during the current legislative
session. Though it’s unlikely these bills will advance in their current form in
this highly budget-focused session, we have concerns that if passed, some of
these proposals would be a setback for the sustainable recovery of wolves in Washington
and their management based on sound science and predator biology.

The
exception to this is House Bill 1676, legislation regarding conducting
research on the effects of wolf predation on ungulate populations. Conservation
Northwest believes that peer reviewed and published scientific data is vitally
important for good decision making when it comes to wolf and wildlife
management. We support this proposal to fund new studies that help the state
and other stakeholders better understand the impact wolves have or do not have
on deer, elk, moose and other ungulate populations in Washington state.

Our staff was not in
Olympia last week to testify against the interests of ranchers, farmers or
residents of rural Washington. We
recognize that as wolves have been naturally recovering in our state, there has
been some conflict with livestock and domestic animals, occurrences that can
cause a real financial and emotional strain on people working hard to make a
living.

Though
the vast majority of wolves and wolf packs choose to pursue natural prey, and
there are proven and effective methods to help ranchers, farmers and rural
residents coexist safely and successfully with predators, there is no 100%
guarantee that conflict avoidance techniques or even the lethal removal of wolves will stop all depredations
indefinitely.

That’s
why we’re committed to continuing to work closely with ranchers and livestock
operators, our partners in the conservation, recreation and hunting communities,
and leadership at the state and county levels to find successful tactics to make
wolf recovery work for people, wolves and other wildlife too. We believe this
sort of collaborative coexistence is
what’s best for Washington’s wolves and people in the long run, as well as for
healthy natural ecosystems in the Pacific Northwest.

In
this spirit, we have been in regular talks this session with state legislators
from both parties, including those from districts in northeast Washington where
the bulk of our state’s wolves currently reside, to understand everyone’s
concerns and figure out what actions could be taken to satisfy those concerns
in a collaborative manner that works for all sides.

Washington’s wolf
recovery is at a critical juncture

Decisions
made in 2015 can have a significant impact on the outcome of this vital native
predator’s return to our state. This year we currently have;

A
new Director
at the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) who brings significant
wolf experience as well as new ideas to support long term predator recovery and
social tolerance,

An
independent mediator recently hired by the state to take input from all sides
and help improve our wolf recovery process,

And
finally, with credible evidence of wolf activity reported recently in several
areas south of Interstate 90 and northwest of Yakima, it’s highly possible
wolves will be confirmed in the South Cascades sooner rather than later, a
significant step towards statewide wolf recovery goals.

We
need to give this new Director and mediator a chance to be successful, without
undermining their work with uncertain and potentially risky changes. We need to
let the citizens on the expanded Wolf Advisory Group provide input and
oversight to WDFW within the framework agreed upon under the Wolf Plan. And we
need to let wolves continue their natural resurgence across our state without
handicapping that recovery by delisting them in any one region.

While we believe the
proposals contained in some of the wolf legislation introduced this session are
premature, we strongly support the collaborative headway that appears to be
developing. Our hope
is that it continues during the remainder of this 2015 legislation session.

The
Washington Wolf Conservation and Management Plan was developed and agreed upon
by a diverse group of stakeholders; including ranchers, farmers, hunters,
conservationists, wildlife advocates and both urban and rural residents. Though there have been some setbacks in its
implementation and the recovery of Washington’s wolves, the plan is working.

Let’s
continue to work together and give this plan a chance before we threaten the
sustainable recovery of gray wolves with proposals that have no guarantee of
improving the lives or livelihoods of those working, recreating and residing in
Washington wolf country.

Note on proposed legislation

While we are in opposition to House
Bill 1199 / Senate Bill 5583, HB 1224, HB 1225, HB 1791, HB 1792 and HJM 4002 as they are currently drafted, we are open to the possibility of wolf translocation (HB 1224) to
ensure that recovery goals are met in a timely manner, particularly for
locations with quality wolf habitat isolated by geography or human development.
But such an effort undertaken by WDFW or the state should be conducted within a thorough public process that includes community input. We are
concerned that the current version of HB 1224 seeks to circumvent the public process laid out by State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requirements.

Additionally,
we are supportive of HB 1676,
whichrequires WDFW to conduct a scientific,
peer-reviewed study assessing the health of the state's wild ungulate
population in game management units that have experienced a change in predator
population dynamics due to the recovery of gray wolves. Conservation Northwest
believes that quality scientific data is vitally important for good decision
making when it comes to wildlife management. We support this proposal to fund
new studies that help the state and other stakeholders better understand the
impact wolves and other predators have or do not have on deer and elk
populations in Washington state.

It’s the final event in the winter Big Read activities organized by the Spokane County Library District. This year’s Big Read has focused on the novel Call of the Wild, by Jack London.

The panel discussion is described by library staff as an “informational event meant to spark a civil discussion on the reintroduction of the wolf into the natural environment and some of the issues that have arisen as a result.”

The program, sponsored by Humanities Washington, will be moderated by Rich Landers, Outdoors editor of The Spokesman-Review, who has written about wolves since the 1980s when they were trickling from Canada into Montana.

Gray wolves were listed as endangered species in 1967. The first den documented in Montana in more than 50 years was found in Glacier National Park in 1986.

In 1995 and 1996, wolves were reintroduced into Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho. They quickly expanded their range and population through Montana, Wyoming, Idaho and more recently into Oregon and Washington.

The panel will explore the emotions, excitement and concerns as well as the damage and management efforts wolf recovery has prompted in the region.

Perspectives will be presented by these panelists:

Leonard Wolf – hunter; Inland Northwest Wildlife Council president.

Andy Braks – SFCC philosophy lecturer; environmental ethicist.

Justin Hedrick – fifth-generation rancher directly affected by wolves; president of the Stevens County Cattlemen’s Association.

A Gonzaga men’s basketball game also is set for Thursday night, but parking should be available on the west side of campus reasonably close to the Jepson Center, organizers say.

]]>No publisherChase GunnellWashington's wolves2015-02-10T02:05:00ZPress ClipKretz legislation proposes relocating wolveshttp://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-clips/kretz-legislation-proposes-relocating-wolves
But seven years is too long a wait for state Rep. Joel Kretz, R-Wauconda, whose Northeast Washington legislative district is currently home to 11 of the state’s 14 wolf packs, as well as cattle ranchers and sheep herders.

Washington’s best wolf habitat is in the southern Cascade Mountains, where vast federal lands support more than 20,000 elk in the state’s two largest herds.

State biologists expect wolves to discover this prime territory and thrive there by 2022, after gradually dispersing south along the Cascade range.

But seven years is too long a wait for state Rep. Joel Kretz, R-Wauconda, whose Northeast Washington legislative district is currently home to 11 of the state’s 14 wolf packs, as well as cattle ranchers and sheep herders.

He’s again sponsoring what he calls a “share the love” bill that would require the Department of Fish and Wildlife to try relocating wolves to other parts of Washington.

“Most of the support in the state for wolves … comes from areas where there are no wolves,” said Kretz, who last year sponsored a bill to capture Eastern Washington wolves and transplant them to the districts of West Side legislators opposed to any controls on the predators.

But the current bill, HB 1224, isn’t a jab at Western Washington, Kretz said. Instead, it’s intended to speed up wolves’ colonization of the state, which would hasten the removal of federal and state protections for wolves and allow for more active management.

The legislation is among several wolf-related bills scheduled for hearings today in the House Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources.

Relocating wolves would face steep political hurdles, but some livestock producers and environmental groups think the idea has merit.

The Washington Cattlemen’s Association wants ranchers to have more options for dealing with wolves that attack livestock, said Jack Field, the association’s executive vice president. That won’t happen until wolf populations recover to the point that federal protections are lifted throughout the state, and relocating wolves would make that happen faster, he said.

According to Washington’s wolf recovery plan, wolves will remain a protected species until at least 15 breeding pairs are documented across the state for three years. The pairs must be geographically dispersed so there are breeding pairs in Eastern Washington, north-central Washington and a zone that includes the south Cascades and Western Washington.

Environmental groups also support faster colonization.

“The South Cascades has the best wolf habitat in the state because of the prey base,” said Mitch Friedman, Conservation Northwest’s executive director. In addition to the Yakima elk herd, with about 10,000 animals, the area contains the St. Helens herd, which is infected with a bacterial hoof disease.

“The state is hiring gunners to mercy-kill some of those elk. Wolves would do a better job,” Friedman said.

But the southern Cascades and the Olympic Peninsula, which also has good wolf habitat, are rural and conservative, much like Northeast Washington. Politically, it would be difficult to get the support to relocate wolves, Friedman said.

“There’s a big difference between wolves coming there on their own paws versus in a state pickup truck,” he said.

That’s one of the state Department of Fish and Wildlife’s concerns, said Dave Ware, the agency’s policy lead on wolves. In the Northern Rockies, anti-wolf advocates have never forgotten the federal government transplanted Canadian wolves into Yellowstone and Central Idaho.

“There’s that stigma that you brought them here, versus them moving in naturally,” Ware said.

The endeavor also would be costly and time consuming, he added. State biologists figure they would need to trap and transplant about 30 wolves – preferably in packs – to end up with several breeding pairs that would stick around in their new location.

Such an action would require thorough state and federal environmental analysis, which would take two to three years to complete. A wolf relocation pilot project, as outlined in Kretz’s bill, would cost about $1 million, according to state estimates.

In a few years, wolves will be establishing packs in the South Cascades on their own, Ware predicted. Wolf tracks have been documented northwest of Yakima, in the foothills of the Cascades, where credible sightings of multiple wolves also have occurred. Last spring, a photo of a wolf was taken in Klickitat County.

“They are bounding around. They’re looking,” Ware said. “It’s just a matter of time before a male and female find each other and decide to start a pack.”

But Kretz said livestock producers in Northeast Washington need faster action to protect their animals from wolf attacks. He and Rep. Shelly Short, R-Addy, also are sponsoring or co-sponsoring several other wolf bills.

Also on the agenda for today’s hearing are bills that would order the Fish and Wildlife Department to manage wolf problems with “lethal means” under certain circumstances and give the Fish and Wildlife Commission more leeway in changing a state endangered species classification.

Sen. Brian Dansel, R-Republic, is sponsoring a companion bill in the Senate, allowing state endangered species to be declassified by region. If adopted, it would allow the state to manage wolves differently in the eastern one-third of Washington than in other parts of the state.

“We’re putting out a number of ideas,” Short said. “We’re saying we just need some relief.”

]]>No publisherChase GunnellWashington's wolves2015-02-05T18:42:47ZPress ClipState’s wolf population risinghttp://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-clips/state2019s-wolf-population-rising
In 2008 a Conservation Northwest volunteer captured the first images of wolves born in the state since the early 1900s. Since then their numbers have more than quintupled. And this is just the start.

OLYMPIA — For the first time in generations wolf populations are on the rise in Washington.

In 2008 a Conservation Northwest volunteer captured the first images of wolves born in the state since the early 1900s. Since then their numbers have more than quintupled. And this is just the start.

“In terms of what we’ve seen in the Rocky Mountain states — Idaho, Montana and Wyoming — we’re at kind of a threshold number in terms of what we’ve seen in prior years,” said Dave Ware, wolf policy lead administrator at the state Department of Fish and Wildlife.

In those cases, wolf populations increased exponentially once they crossed the 50-wolf mark. Today, the department has confirmed at least 52 wolves living in Washington, mostly in the northeastern part of the state. At the rate they’re currently breeding, the agency anticipates wolves could reach state recovery objectives as early as 2021.

Ware presented the findings to a joint House and Senate committee Jan. 14. Although they paint a pretty picture for wolf populations, their re-emergence doesn’t necessarily spell good news for everyone.

Especially not for ranchers.

“Twenty percent of wolf packs end up causing a depredation at some point,” Ware told lawmakers. “Certainly that number varies significantly, or can from one year to the next. But that can have significant impacts on individual ranchers.”

The first recently recorded wolf attack on Washington livestock occurred in 2007, before any wolves had been officially reported living in the state. Since then, Ware says wolf depredations have been fairly limited, although increases in recent years have forced WDFW officers to take lethal action twice, both in Stevens County: once in 2012 when 16 cows were attacked, and again in 2014 when 30 sheep were confirmed to have been attacked or killed by a local wolf pack.

When it comes to attacks on livestock, the agency focuses most of its efforts on what Ware calls preventative deterrence. This means helping landowners procure guard dogs and electric fences, as well as sending out range-riders — horsemen dedicated to keeping herds moving, removing animal carcasses from wolf-heavy areas and keeping their eyes out for any signs of wolf activity.

To date the state fish and wildlife officials have worked with more than 40 individual landowners to help maintain wolf populations, issuing compensation when it must. The agency notes that preventative measures only go so far, and after multiple attacks are attributed to a single pack, its officers have no choice but to take lethal action, Ware explained.

Eight wolves have been killed by state officers in the past three years, approximately one-sixth of their minimum population. In the Rocky Mountain states, 15 percent of wolf deaths were attributed to humans before recovery goals were reached.

The state recently conducted a public survey that showed strong support for wolf recovery, along with an equally strong support for killing wolves that repeatedly attack livestock. The survey showed that 64 percent of those polled support wolf-reintroduction efforts, yet 63 percent were in favor of using lethal force to protect livestock.

Support of lethal force is as high as 68 percent in Eastern Washington, where wolves and ranching are the most prevalent. It’s lowest — 56 percent — in the state’s five most populous counties, including Snohomish County, where no wolves have been recorded.

“The most support in the state for wolf recovery is in areas where there are no wolves,” Rep. Joel Kretz, R-Wauconda, told the committee. “I’m worried that that disproportionate impact is going to hurt social acceptance of wolves in my area.”

Kretz expressed concern that a lack of coordination between the state, local and tribal governments is leading to poor management decisions, citing an instance where approximately 1,800 sheep were placed near a wolf-breeding site by mistake. “If we don’t resolve this,” he said, “things are just going to become even more polarized and you’ll never have wolf acceptance in my part of the state.”

Since 2008, support for wolf reintroduction has been on the rise and opposition has been in decline. Ware remains optimistic and concedes that given the controversial nature of the issue, support will never reach 100 percent.

“Every state that undergoes wolf recovery experiences the challenges that we’re experiencing as well,” he said.

]]>No publisherChase GunnellWashington's wolveswolf2015-01-26T20:38:09ZPress ClipSpokane group uses billboards to take stand on wolveshttp://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-clips/spokane-group-uses-billboards-to-take-stand-on-wolves
Mitch Friedman, executive director of Conservation Northwest, an organization that supports wolves, said WARAW is not trying to demonstrate that they are thoughtful people.A Spokane-based group is trying to address wolf management.

A Spokane-based group has mounted a billboard advertising campaign to increase awareness of the impact wolves have on Washington state.

Washington Residents Against Wolves began the campaign using eight billboards in November and December. The billboards include such messages as “Endangered? No. Deadly? Yes. Good for Washington? Absolutely not” and “The wolf — Who’s next on their menu?” It shows pictures of a deer, an elk, a calf, a dog and a young girl.

The billboards were intended to stir interest and educate residents about the impacts of wolves on the state, a spokesman for the group said.

“We’ve received many good inquiries and inputs on the billboards, although we’ve also had death threats as well from people who mostly don’t even reside within our state,” said David Burdge, a spokesman and member of the group.

The group has 20 members and is not affiliated with any other organization. Its members are concerned about the health and safety of Washington wildlife and residents, Burdge said.

“We would like to see a new wolf management plan drawn up that manages our wildlife equally,” he said. WARAW believes the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is not following its wolf management plan and using lethal control when the plan calls for it.

“(The state needs) to be concerned about Washington residents and not special interest groups that keep threatening to sue them,” Burdge said. “Most of those people don’t reside here, they don’t have to live with the wolf. We do.”

He said the group realizes wolves are here to stay.

“We are not for eradicating the entire population. We would like to have the department look at their wolf management plan and cut the numbers down to something much more realistic.”

WARAW would prefer five or six breeding pairs across the state. There are currently 11 packs in northeast Washington. “We’re trying to give people who may be on the fence or just don’t know a truly factual base from which they can educate themselves,” he said.

Mitch Friedman, executive director of Conservation Northwest, an organization that supports wolves, said WARAW is not trying to demonstrate that they are thoughtful people.

“I respect groups that try to advance calm, fact-based, common-interest discussions, not so much those who try to inflame entrenched positions,” Friedman said. “When I look at those billboards and other information WARAW posts on social media, it strikes me that they’re just ideologues trying to fan flames, and I don’t think that’s good for farmers, wolves or democracy.”

Conservation Northwest doesn’t plan to respond to the billboards. “We don’t feel like waving our arms in response to their arm-waving,” Friedman said.

Jack Field, executive vice president of the Washington Cattlemen’s Association, says WARAW’s efforts demonstrate the impact of wolf recovery efforts. His association is not affiliated with WARAW.

“It shows there’s a broad crosscut of folks that have opinions on it,” Field said. “I think these billboards help to explain some of the concerns folks have. In the northeast corner of Washington, the overall pack density looks disproportionate compared to the rest of the state. This just helps elevate the discussion.”

]]>No publisherChase GunnellWashington's wolves2015-01-06T21:00:06ZPress Clip State works to find balance between wolves, livestockhttp://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-clips/state-works-to-find-balance-between-wolves-livestock
Extra supervision seems to be working, since none of the six ranchers he worked with this year had animals killed by wolves. But it doesn’t come cheap — Kahne estimated about $20,000 for the summer grazing season. Despite the financial assistance available from state programs and the conservation group, some are still reluctant to change their practices, Kahne said.

YAKIMA, Wash. — Unlike the wolves of northeastern Washington whose livestock kills have prompted a public outcry, the small pack in Kittitas County has lived quietly for several years without generating any complaints.

So it shocked many wildlife advocates when one of the Teanaway Pack’s females was found dead of a gunshot wound to the hindquarters in October just north of Lake Cle Elum.

The crime — shooting an endangered species is a federal criminal act — might have gone undiscovered had the wolf not been wearing a GPS collar.

While details are few, authorities assume the wolf was likely shot by someone unhappy with the predators’ return. That’s been the case with three wolves illegally killed in Stevens, Ferry and Whitman counties in the last year.

The dead wolf from the Teanaway Pack was the only documented breeding female in Central Washington, so her death likely represents a step back for recovery of the species, which remains on the state’s endangered list, said Jay Kehne, who works for Conservation Northwest helping ranchers adapt to living with wolves.

Decades after being nearly wiped out in Washington, the wolf population — documented in the 50s and counting — lives primarily in the sparsely populated parts of the state’s northeast region. There, they have created both conflicts with ranchers and prompted calls for additional protections from wildlife advocates.

Observers say that some of the controversy is simply the growing pains of adapting to the wolves’ return. But if more of the population expands west and south as expected, it remains to be seen whether conflicts with livestock will follow or if the successful coexistence seen in the Teanaway can be a model for elsewhere.

In the summer, Sam Kayser runs several hundred cow-calf pairs on public land pastures in the Teanaway area, and although there have been signs and sightings of wolves in the area over the past four years, he said he hasn’t had any kills. For that, he credits both smart management and lucky circumstances.

“My opinion is that I want to coexist with the wolves, I want to believe there is room for all of us out there,” Kayser said.

With financial help from the state Department of Fish and Wildlife and Conservation Northwest, he’s hired extra riders to spend more time with the cows grazing in the areas the wolves frequent.

“Their presence just being out there helps the wolves to realize that they don’t like hamburger,” Kayser said. “There’s a large elk herd up there, so they have their natural prey base. I’m fortunate that way.”

Kayser also said he feels badly for ranchers in the northeastern part of the state, where the vast majority of the state’s wolves live. Too many for the area, he believes, which is why some wolves are hunting livestock instead of deer and elk. As of 2013, there were six wolves in the Teanaway Pack, and nearly 40 in 10 packs in the northeast corner of the state.

In August, the state killed the breeding female of the Huckleberry pack northwest of Spokane, after the pack had killed more than 20 sheep in multiple incidents. Previous measures, including human surveillance, guard dogs and nonlethal “hazing” actions such as high powered lights and paint balls, had been ineffective, according to the Fish and Wildlife Department, which said the predation stopped after the wolf was shot.

Jack Field, executive director of the Washington Cattlemen’s Association, agrees that wolf density is key to the problems some ranchers are experiencing.

“In Kittitas County, you’ve got a relatively small wolf pack with an overabundance of prey,” Field said. “Up north, you’ve got nine or 10 packs practically on top of each other, and it’s a simple function of population and area.”

In December, the Spokane-based Washington Residents Against Wolves called on the state to release data about wolves’ impact on prey populations and to research the possibility of relocating wolves from their area to other parts of the state.

But Scott Becker, a wolf specialist with the state wildlife department, said the current plan is to let wolves disperse themselves, in part because they won’t necessarily stay where you put them.

“Typically, young wolves in a pack will strike out and disperse and set up a territory and hope to find a mate,” Becker said. “They have an incredible ability to cover a lot of country in a short period of time.”

Moreover, the population is larger in northeastern Washington because wolves are coming into the state from larger populations in the Northern Rockies and Canada, he said. Wolves were not reintroduced to the state by people; they came themselves.

The problem is the Washington that wolves are returning to has changed — there’s more developed areas and more people, which make it harder for wolves to disperse and find suitable new territory across the state.

“We don’t have large blocks of habitat like you might see in Idaho,” Field said. “The point is that we’ll see wolves in Washington, but the likelihood of them persisting without some impact isn’t high. We’re going to have issues and challenges as recolonization occurs.”

Under the state’s recovery plan, developed in 2011, taking the wolf off the state’s endangered species list requires 15 breeding pairs: four in each of three regions — East, North Cascades and South Cascades/Northwest Coast — and three additional pairs anywhere. As of 2013, the Eastern region had three breeding pairs out of 10 packs and the North Cascades region, including Teanaway, had two. The southern Cascades, which includes Yakima County, had none.

Field, who was part of the management planning effort, said the numbers are intended to ensure genetic diversity, but the result was “arbitrary” units that didn’t consider how much habitat and wild prey is available to support wolves. He worries that in the southern region, there aren’t enough deer and elk.

“When we look at sustainability and carrying capacity, we need to remember an important stakeholder: the sportsmen,” Field said. “We have to find a balance that continues to allow hunters to go out and enjoy deer, elk and moose harvest and still have enough for wildlife to be sustained.”

He thinks the 15 pair requirement is too high, but since that’s the goal, he’s hoping the state can get there as soon as possible.

That lack of wolves across the state limits certain management tools, such as a wolf hunting season or allowing ranchers to shoot problematic wolves. It’s counter-intuitive, but having more wolves will actually make it easier for the state to deal with those wolves that cause problems.

Becker, the wildlife biologist, said studies around the West show only about 20 percent of wolf packs try to prey on livestock. It’s difficult to know why, but proximity to livestock is a likely cause, he said.

“The closer they are, the more they see them, the more likely they are to try them out,” Becker said. “But, it also may have to do with the availability of natural prey on the landscape; then wolves may be less likely to test out livestock that may be around.”

The controversy in Washington is similar to other parts of the West, just newer, Becker said.

Field said the key to living with wolves is actually social tolerance.

He said he believes as long as ranchers and hunters feel like the state is listening to their concerns as it moves forward managing wolves, there will be fewer frustrations and fewer wolves illegally shot.

“It’s easier for me to say that than for us to do it, but that’s the challenge ahead of us,” Field said. “The department is reaching out to stakeholders and trying to get the right tools out there.”

The tool that’s worked for Kayser in the Teanaway and other ranchers in Eastern Washington is using range riders to keep an eye on grazing livestock and to deter wolves.

“It’s an age-old practice in Western civilization,” Kehne said. “When predators are back on the scene and you have livestock in rough country, a human presence is very important.”

The range riders, on horseback or off-road vehicle, work cattle the old-fashioned way with the help of modern tools like the GPS data transmitted by collared wolves in the area, to help plan movements to minimize conflict, Kehne said. If wolves approach, nonlethal measures, such as loud noises, are used to scare them off.

Extra supervision seems to be working, since none of the six ranchers he worked with this year had animals killed by wolves. But it doesn’t come cheap — Kehne estimated about $20,000 for the summer grazing season. Despite the financial assistance available from state programs and the conservation group, some are still reluctant to change their practices, Kehne said.

Field said it’s important to allow ranchers to choose the solutions that work best for their operations, but he’s glad to see the success Kayser has had with the range riding.

“The biggest challenge ahead of the department is the ability to get more wolves collared,” Field said. “The more collars we get on wolves, the better it is for everyone.”

Although he hasn’t lost any animals, the wolves have definitely had an impact, Kayser said. He thinks wolves have chased his cows a few times when people weren’t around. A few times, he’s found the animals 10 or 15 miles from their pastures and thinks they were stalked.

“That’s a long way for big fat lazy cows,” Kayser said. “Now, the cows are afraid of the dogs too, they didn’t used to be. That’s makes it more difficult for us, because the dogs save time and money versus having to pay somebody.”

He said he’s willing to adapt to the wolves, but he doesn’t think it’s reasonable for the state to expect the wolf population to be as large as it was 100 years ago, either.

He’s looking to compromise and hopes that’s where the reintroduction ends up, once people get past the growing pains part. Kehne agreed.

“The world has changed and there are wolves here now,” Kehne said. “It’s really about people coming together to solve this. The biggest negative is that it takes people time to get used to it, but farm families and ranch families deserve a chance to figure it out.”

]]>No publisherChase GunnellWashington's wolvesRange ridingWhat's Hot2015-01-05T19:50:00ZPress ClipReward Increased to $20,000 in Killing of Endangered Wolf in Washingtonhttp://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-releases/reward-increased-to-20-000-in-killing-of-endangered-wolf-in-washington
Conservation groups are now offering up to a $20,000 reward for information leading to conviction of those responsible for the illegal killing of the breeding female wolf of the Teanaway pack in Washington’s Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest. For More Information:Amaroq Weiss, Center for Biological Diversity, (707) 779-9613Jasmine Minbashian, Conservation Northwest, (360) 319-3111Shawn Cantrell, Defenders of Wildlife, (206) 508-5475 Dan Paul, The Humane Society of the United States, (206) 913-2280Caileigh Robertson, Woodland Park Zoo, (206) 548-2550

SEATTLE— Conservation groups are now offering up to a $20,000 reward for information leading to conviction of those responsible for the illegal killing of the breeding female wolf of the Teanaway pack in Washington’s Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest. Last month the groups posted a reward offer of up to $15,000, but have now increased the amount, after a member of Conservation Northwest stepped forward to contribute an additional $5,000.

“This new donation to help bring the Teanaway wolf poacher to justice shows how passionate Washingtonians are about protecting our rare and recovering wildlife,” said Jasmine Minbashian of Conservation Northwest. “There is strong support for wolf recovery in Washington, and people are appalled by this type of illegal killing. We’re thrilled to see our supporters stepping up like this, they make our work possible.”

The Teanaway Pack wolf was killed in mid-October near Salmon la Sac in the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, making it the fourth known illegal wolf-killing in the state in 2014. In February a member of the Smackout Pack was found killed in Stevens County; in August a wolf was found gunned down in Ferry County; and a Whitman County farmer is facing potential prosecution after chasing a wolf for miles, then gunning it down after seeing the wolf near his field.

“It’s hard to comprehend these senseless illegal killings, because not only are wolves legally protected, there is no evidence these wolves were doing anything harmful at the time of their deaths,” said Amaroq Weiss, West Coast wolf organizer for the Center for Biological Diversity. “What’s more, if anyone thinks they were helping out livestock producers by killing wolves, the exact opposite is true; a brand new study published by a Washington State University wolf scientist demonstrates that killing wolves can increase wolf-livestock conflicts.”

A wolf from the Teanaway Pack. Photo: WDFW

Wolves, which were largely eradicated from the state by the early-to-mid 1900s, are starting to make a comeback, and are fully protected under the federal Endangered Species Act in the western two-thirds of Washington and throughout the state under state endangered species law. The state wolf-conservation goal is a minimum of 15 successful breeding pairs for three consecutive years in three recovery regions across the state from eastern Washington to the Olympic Peninsula. To date, numbers of successful breeding packs in the state have been stagnant at five packs since 2012. However, in 2014 three of those packs will no longer qualify as successful breeders since the breeding females of the Huckleberry Pack and the Teanaway Pack have both been killed and a wildfire resulted in the loss of most pups from the Lookout Pack.

“This deplorable action should not be left unchecked. Washington’s wolf population remains precarious, and killing the breeding alpha female of the Teanaway pack has cascading consequences for continued wolf recovery in Washington,” said Shawn Cantrell, Northwest regional director for Defenders of Wildlife. “This reward will hopefully help law enforcement bring the perpetrator to justice.”

According to Special Agent Eric Marek with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Law Enforcement, the investigation is still open and ongoing. Anyone with information about the killing of the Teanaway female wolf, or anyone who may have noticed suspicious behavior in the Salmon la Sac area in October, should contact federal law-enforcement agents at (206) 512-9329 or (509) 727-8358. State law enforcement may be contacted at the 1-877-933-9847 hotline for reporting poaching activity in Washington.

The organizations that have contributed to the reward fund for information leading to a conviction in this case include the Center for Biological Diversity, Conservation Northwest, Defenders of Wildlife, The Humane Society of the United States, The Humane Society Wildlife Land Trust and Woodland Park Zoo.

]]>No publisherChase GunnellWashington's wolvesWhat's Hot2014-12-23T19:50:00ZPress ReleaseRange-riding wolf patrol shows signs of success in Twisphttp://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-clips/range-riding-wolf-patrol-shows-signs-of-success-in-twisp
TWISP, Wash. — In a place where wolf recovery is about as divisive as politics or religion, one program is cutting through the controversy.

TWISP, Wash. — In a place where wolf recovery is about as divisive as politics or religion, one program is cutting through the controversy.

For the last three summers, a pilot program has put patrols on the range to keep tabs on where the wolves are, and to check up on livestock that could be nearby.

Funded by the state Department of Fish and Wildlife with a match from ranchers donated mostly by the nonprofit group Conservation Northwest, the program expanded last summer to include five ranchers with cattle or sheep grazing in areas now occupied by wolf packs.

The idea is to prevent wolves from killing livestock. And so far, it’s working.

Twisp cattle rancher Karla Christianson, who signed on last summer, said she was initially skeptical about the program. She said she wants to get along with the wolves, but after signing the contract with the state and Conservation Northwest, she wondered what she was getting into.

“I thought, ‘What am I doing? I’m not going to tell any of the other ranchers I’m doing this,’” she said.

But after hiring Dale Cheney to patrol the Forest Service roads throughout a vast allotment near Carlton where she grazes 150 cow-calf pairs in the summer, she’s optimistic. “I feel like everybody in this has got a lot of common sense, and is working toward not taking one side,” she said.

Her cattle spend the summer in the same area where the Lookout Pack was discovered in 2008 as the state’s first wolf pack in 70 years. It’s also where she thinks wolves killed three of her calves in 2009.

After that year, the pack nearly disappeared — some of the pack members were poached. Now, the pack’s numbers are starting to rebuild, and she’s hoping this time, she can keep her cattle safe.

“I think range riding is about the best option to try to deter problems,” Christianson said, adding, “I feel like we’re doing something, at least, instead of just getting really defensive.”

Jay Kehne, outreach coordinator for Conservation Northwest, and a Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife commissioner, said they started with one rancher in 2012, worked the bugs out and gradually built to five range riders last year. In addition to Christianson, they worked with ranchers in Stevens and Kittitas counties, and on the Colville Indian Reservation.

When a rancher signs up for the Fish and Wildlife program, they’re eligible for up to $10,000 from the state to hire a range rider and pay for gas and other costs. “How they choose to use it is up to them,” he said.

For the ranchers involved so far, Conser-vation Northwest has donated $9,000 for each of the five range riders hired.

After three summers, ranchers who participated have not lost any livestock to wolves.

Kehne said they don’t expect the success rate to always be 100 percent. “Wolves are wolves, and one in eight packs turns to depredation,” he said, adding, “It’s a big territory with a lot of wolves and a lot of livestock.”

Steve Wetzel, wildlife conflict specialist for the state Department of Fish and Wildlife in Ellensburg, said other states where wolves have recovered use a range rider program, and it works.

It may seem costly, but with up to $2,000 compensation for each cow killed by wolves, it doesn’t take long to pay for itself, he said.

“What we don’t want is livestock depredation. And the most important thing is to be proactive,” he said. When a wolf pack turns to livestock for food, they are more likely to return in the future, he said.

The program can save time investigating wolf kills for the agency, and it helps with wolf recovery. “It also helps the livestock producers,” Wetzel said. “They only have so much money and time to devote to their entire operation. When you throw in wolf management, that’s just one more thing they have to divide their time and profit margin on.”

To help prevent wolf-kills, ranchers have access to information about where the wolves are, and can use that to determine where to send their range rider.

Kehne added that riding the range is an age-old practice for ranchers. But just as times have changed, so have their modes of transportation. While some of today’s range riders use horses, others ride motorcycles, four-wheelers and even mountain bikes. Some stay out on the range, others go home every day.

“People think it’s a horse and cowboy,” he said. “But the image of a range rider isn’t necessarily how it all gets done. It’s whatever tool works.”

As wolves recover, the need for more range riders — and funds to help ranchers pay them — is going to grow, Kehne said. “From our standpoint, we want to continue to support the ranchers we’ve been supporting,” he said. Future success of the program will depend on the private or nonprofit support to help livestock owners provide the human presence shown to deter wolves from killing sheep and cattle, he said.

]]>No publisherChase GunnellRanchingWashington's wolvesRange riding2014-12-19T22:40:00ZPress ClipRange riders help protect against wolveshttp://www.conservationnw.org/news/pressroom/press-clips/range-riders-help-protect-against-wolves
For the last three summers, a pilot program has put patrols on the range to keep tabs on where the wolves are, and to check up on livestock that could be nearby.

TWISP — In a place where wolf recovery is about as divisive as politics or religion, one program is cutting through the controversy.

For the last three summers, a pilot program has put patrols on the range to keep tabs on where the wolves are, and to check up on livestock that could be nearby.

Funded by the state Department of Fish and Wildlife with a match from ranchers donated mostly by the nonprofit group Conservation Northwest, the program expanded last summer to include five ranchers with cattle or sheep grazing in areas now occupied by wolf packs.

The idea is to prevent wolves from killing livestock. And so far, it’s working.

Twisp cattle rancher Karla Christianson, who signed on last summer, said she was initially skeptical about the program. She said she wants to get along with the wolves, but after signing the contract with the state and Conservation Northwest, she wondered what she was getting into. “I thought, ‘What am I doing? I’m not going to tell any of the other ranchers I’m doing this,’” she said.

But after hiring Dale Cheney to patrol the Forest Service roads throughout a vast allotment near Carlton where she grazes 150 cow-calf pairs in the summer, she’s optimistic. “I feel like everybody in this has got a lot of common sense, and is working toward not taking one side,” she said.

Her cattle spend the summer in the same area where the Lookout Pack was discovered in 2008 as the state’s first wolf pack in 70 years. It’s also where she thinks wolves killed three of her calves in 2009.

After that year, the pack nearly disappeared — some of the pack members were poached. Now, the pack’s numbers are starting to rebuild, and she’s hoping this time, she can keep her cattle safe.

“I think range riding is about the best option to try to deter problems,” Christianson said, adding, “I feel like we’re doing something, at least, instead of just getting really defensive.”

Jay Kehne, outreach coordinator for Conservation Northwest, and a Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife commissioner, said they started with one rancher in 2012, worked the bugs out and gradually built to five range riders last year. In addition to Christianson, they worked with ranchers in Stevens and Kittitas counties, and on the Colville Indian Reservation.

When a rancher signs up for the Fish and Wildlife program, they’re eligible for up to $10,000 from the state to hire a range rider and pay for gas and other costs. “How they choose to use it is up to them,” he said.

For the ranchers involved so far, Conservation Northwest has donated $9,000 for each of the five range riders hired.

After three summers, ranchers who participated have not lost any livestock to wolves.

Kehne said they don’t expect the success rate to always be 100 percent. “Wolves are wolves, and one in eight packs turns to depredation,” he said, adding, “It’s a big territory with a lot of wolves and a lot of livestock.”

Steve Wetzel, wildlife conflict specialist for the state Department of Fish and Wildlife in Ellensburg, said other states where wolves have recovered use a range rider program, and it works.

It may seem costly, but with up to $2,000 compensation for each cow killed by wolves, it doesn’t take long to pay for itself, he said.

“What we don’t want is livestock depredation. And the most important thing is to be proactive,” he said. When a wolf pack turns to livestock for food, they are more likely to return in the future, he said.

The program can save time investigating wolf kills for the agency, and it helps with wolf recovery. “It also helps the livestock producers,” Wetzel said. “They only have so much money and time to devote to their entire operation. When you throw in wolf management, that’s just one more thing they have to divide their time and profit margin on.”

To help prevent wolf-kills, ranchers have access to information about where the wolves are, and can use that to determine where to send their range rider.

Kehne added that riding the range is an age-old practice for ranchers. But just as times have changed, so have their modes of transportation. While some of today’s range riders use horses, others ride motorcycles, four-wheelers and even mountain bikes. Some stay out on the range, others go home every day.

“People think it’s a horse and cowboy,” he said. “But the image of a range rider isn’t necessarily how it all gets done. It’s whatever tool works.”

As wolves recover, the need for more range riders — and funds to help ranchers pay them — is going to grow, Kehne said. “From our standpoint, we want to continue to support the ranchers we’ve been supporting,” he said. Future success of the program will depend on the private or nonprofit support to help livestock owners provide the human presence shown to deter wolves from killing sheep and cattle, he said.

Reach K.C. Mehaffey at 509-997-2512 or mehaffey@wenatcheeworld.com. Read her blog An Apple a Day or follow her on Twitter at @KCMehaffeyWW.